A piece I wrote for The Conversation, published with the title "Stop press: research discovers ‘narcissists’ are only human"

Words are powerful things, and the words
we use to classify and pathologise can be powerfully negative – something I’ve argued here
before. Unfortunately, psychologists use pejorative and
scientifically inaccurate language too – even when they are conducting positive
and life-affirming research.

A recent example of this was the
announcement that narcissists are able to feel empathy – based on a study
published in Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. The title of the paper asked
“can narcissists be empathic?” and concludes that “narcissists can be moved by
another’s suffering, if they take that person’s perspective”.

Let’s think about that a little.
Narcissism is a term – a psychological term – which refers to
“extreme selfishness”, “a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for
admiration” and “self-centredness.” This is a trait we all share, yet there is
a tendency to reify it into a
diagnosis – something I wholly disagree with as clinical
psychologist. We all have a tendency – greater or less – to be selfish and I
don’t see it as helpful to discuss “narcissism” and “narcissists” in diagnostic
terms.

The researchers said they had
focused on individuals with “subclinical narcissism”,
rather than people with a clinical diagnosis of narcissistic personality
disorder (NPD) because “people high in subclinical narcissism are
psychologically healthy and well-adjusted, often even very successful, whereas
people with NPD are inflexible and volatile, and don’t manage day-to-day life
well.“ But this kind of use of language nevertheless distorts and perverts our
thinking.

This particular research is quite interesting
and benign. But it comes across – with this kind of language – as if there are
certain kinds of people walking secretly among us: narcissists. We immediately
have a negative response, made worse by the implication that these narcissists
“lack empathy”. The researchers' delicacy in discussing “subclinical
narcissism” in my opinion merely serves to reinforce the idea that such
distinctions – and the conclusions made about people on the basis of such
distinctions – are valid.

There is a prevalent myth that we should
be scared of people with a diagnosed mental illness because of a lack of
empathy. Perhaps it would make more sense, and be a little less alarming, if we
didn’t say “narcissists lack empathy” and instead said “people who tend to
think about themselves rather more than the average tend to think about other
people somewhat less than the average”. Or even: “We’d all be better off if we
thought about others a little more.” I think it would be less misleading and
much less stigmatising, but it’s also less headline-grabbing than the
alternative.

Similarly, I think it’s worth
considering the second element of this research. The academics reported that
“individuals high in narcissism … are capable of reporting higher empathy … if
instructed to take that person’s perspective”. Clearly this is good news. But
again I think we should be very careful – very careful indeed ––with our
language. If read incorrectly, bearing in mind the paper’s title, this finding
could be seen as suggesting that there are certain people out there with a
pathology, called narcissism, that renders them incapable of empathy. But
fortunately we’ve found a way of making them care more about other people. I
don’t think it’s quite like that.

While it’s pretty obvious that
selfishness is likely to be associated with antisocial behaviour and empathy
protects us against hurting other people, it’s not helpful to suggest that
crime can be accounted for as the symptom of some form of narcissistic mental
disorder. And rather than framing this research around “narcissism”, it could
be something more along the lines that people who tend to think about
themselves rather more than the average do so, unless they are prompted to take
the other person’s point of view.

Don’t get me wrong. This is good news.
It’s good to think about the way in which we all, me included, can be
self-centred, lacking in compassion, lacking in empathy. And the fact that
simple, psychological, interventions (reminding ourselves to take the other person’s
point of view) can increase that compassion is obviously good. It’s
particularly important to note that this is a simple psychological cue; we’re
not really correcting a brain abnormality here. We use language inappropriately
when we label ordinary social and psychological phenomena as “disorders” and
pathologies. We need to stop.